DOE Outlines the Path Forward for Energy Storage

Grid-scale energy storage system prices have to come down, not just the cost of the actual storage components. At the same time, the value of storage has to be redefined in the energy landscape, according to a new report by the U.S. Department of Energy.

The report is a summation of the storage landscape, both technical and regulatory, and outlines what many in the industry already know. But it also offers some clear indications of where the DOE would like to see support from Congress.

The most interesting aspect of the report is that it was presented on Thursday to the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee after being commissioned by committee chairman, Senator Ron Wyden (D-OR). Whether the report can interest the committee in any way to help push storage forward is unclear.

“This is a pivotal time for the storage community, and this report could not have been more timely,” Darrell Hayslip, chairman of the Electricity Storage Association, said in a statement.

The DOE defined four major challenges to the widespread adoption of energy storage: the development of cost-effective energy storage technologies, validated reliability and safety, an equitable regulatory environment, and industry acceptance.

In terms of cost-effectiveness, the DOE focused on the need for cheaper systems, not just cheaper components. “The storage component still constitutes only 30% to 40% of the total system cost, thus the focus needs to be on the entire system,” the study finds.

The report goes on to outline the various uses for storage, beyond just saving power until it is needed later. Other ways in which storage provides value include spinning and non-spinning reserves, ramping support for renewables, distribution upgrade deferral and voltage support, and customer-side meter storage.

The DOE, which has various departments working on storage issues, outlined near-term and long-term performance targets for grid storage, including a AC storage system capital cost of under $250 per kilowatt-hour and more than 4,000 cycles in the short term.

“Increased transparency into project performance and economics will be needed to help move the sector forward,” said Zach Pollock, senior analyst with GTM Research.

Besides bring cost down and aligning the correct value to storage, the DOE also wrote in the report that quantitative analytics will be critical to move the commercialization of storage forward. The DOE is planning for targeted analyses and tool development in the following areas:

Component-cost modeling

Electric power system analysis and technical support

Collaborating with states and regions (particularly California)

Analysis of demonstration projects

Planning tools development

Codes and standards for market acceptance

The report did not ask for additional funding or congressional support for any one area of research and development, but instead laid out the various challenges and promises of storage in the hopes that it piques the interest of Congress beyond Wyden.

“I’m looking forward to working with Secretary Moniz to find ways to implement the DOE’s recommendations to make energy storage an integral part of our country’s electricity grid,” Wyden said in a statement. The question is who else is looking forward to prioritizing energy storage in a divided Congress.

Greentech Media (GTM) produces industry-leading news, research, and conferences in the business-to-business greentech market. Our coverage areas include solar, smart grid, energy efficiency, wind, and other non-incumbent energy markets. For more information, visit: greentechmedia.com , follow us on twitter: @greentechmedia, or like us on Facebook: facebook.com/greentechmedia.

Katherine, conspicuously absent from this discussion is whether storage will utlimately reduce carbon emissions. Though this tacit assumption is made, all storage results in an efficiency penalty. Are the benefits for frequency regulation and ramping cancelled out by resistance in storage and transmission?You write “grid-scale energy storage system prices have to come down”. What really needs to come down are carbon emissions, and the DOE is wisely proceeding with caution until a thorough accounting of storage, both in financial and environmental terms, can be made.

Ah, the storage dilema: it is obvious that storage is necessary for society to enjoy the benefits of solar energy at night and on cloudy days, but in the short term, storage can make coal more competitive against fast-ramping natural gas in a high renewable scenario and allows energy arbitrage – buying cheap off-peak coal power at night and selling it for on-peak pricing the next day (which decreases the prices fetched by solar).

Nathan, that’s a take I hadn’t considered. Do you have evidence this coal/storage arbitrage is actually happening? Now I’m imagining all kinds of devious ways which storage might be gamed for profit, while completely defeating its original purpose.Similarly, while distributed solar is often portrayed as an epic David vs. Goliath battle of liberation, it can also be viewed as plain old privatization – taking a largely shared public resource and putting it into unregulated private hands. All kinds of room for abuse there.

Storage is certainly one possible path to a zero-fossil electric grid, but there is one more: fuel synthesis from excess electricity that would otherwise be curtailed or sent to storage. This simultaneously provides a sustainable transportation fuel (for that portion of the industry which cannot be electrified), as well as providing short term load balancing, frequency regulation, and long-term smoothing for seasonal load balancing. The result would be less dependence on storage for all systems, and no need for storage for systems rich in baseload sources like geothermal and nuclear.Note that an energy price of $0.10/kWh corresponds to $3.40 per gallon of gasoline equivalent (BTU), and with realistic efficiencies and additional capital cost, a rather expensive fuel will result. This means that this approach will be most economical in places like China and India, which can make sustainable energy (wind and nuclear) for half of that cost (not that the US should do nothing – we are the technology supplier to the world).It also means that we should only synthesize those fuels which are the least expensive and most efficient in the vehicles (i.e. hydrogen or ammonia for fuel cells; ammonia, methanol, or diesel for ICEs, definitely not gasoline). And clearly the syn-fuel should not be marketed against cheap coal, but against more valuable petroleum-based imported transportation fuels (i.e. the German “power-to-gas” program is doomed to fail).

Good Day Ms TweedAgain these articles and focus is on increasing electric energy efficiency.Is this all the USA and the world revolves itself around?In the residential market and USA market, there is only 1 grade of natural gas.Why does these industries and governments not realize how much energy they are wasting?Why are the differences so different across our state? Our county?Life is a Challenge. Let’s battle it together!Life together can be a battle, but together in His team we can win these battles. The decision has to be made, Do we fight it head on? or wimp out and leave it up to our government and local administrators to provide and control these battels? …………………………………………… .. Our goal should be to provide for our home family, and also our community, and then the rest of the world. At the end of the day we are to be tired, from helping others.